Joined: 09 Jul 2006Posts: 9702Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:34 am Post subject:

andrew wrote:

We routinely utilize death as a means to an end in many cases where alternatives exist.

Like? What kind of cost benefit variables should be considered in the analysis?

And I agree, it is very much a _perceived_ cost. So, how does one change that perspective? Can an emotional/anecdotal appeal be created to show the logical position (you guys were talking about heuristics somewhere else...)._________________Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

Here's why I look at the death penalty the way I do: If someone were to purposefully and willfully murder one of my loved ones (like say one of my kids was kidnapped, raped and then murdered) I would want that person dead.

You've actually got kind of an interesting approach going there, using your own expected moral choices as the bar. So let's ask the next logical question: let's assume you are required to perform the execution yourself, but you know that if you pull the trigger there is a 5% chance that somewhere an innocent man would also die.* Does your action remain the same?

* quick search showed about 3300 people on death row in the US, with 135 or so having been exonerated. We'll very graciously assume that we've found 100% of the wrongly accused.

I'm not answering this. Under this rationale we should never sentence anyone on the chance that they might be innocent. You're choice also precludes the chance that a person could be definitely guilty. Say a person is caught in the act and shows no remorse, no potential for rehabilitation, a true misanthrope. I realize that this would only apply to a very, very small percentage of cases but that's as is should be._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Last edited by Darqcyde on Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

I do not want them rehabilitated. I do not want them to have a second chance.

And why exactly?

A person as selfish and self centered as yourself could never begin to understand._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Here's why I look at the death penalty the way I do: If someone were to purposefully and willfully murder one of my loved ones (like say one of my kids was kidnapped, raped and then murdered) I would want that person dead.

You've actually got kind of an interesting approach going there, using your own expected moral choices as the bar. So let's ask the next logical question: let's assume you are required to perform the execution yourself, but you know that if you pull the trigger there is a 5% chance that somewhere an innocent man would also die.* Does your action remain the same?

* quick search showed about 3300 people on death row in the US, with 135 or so having been exonerated. We'll very graciously assume that we've found 100% of the wrongly accused.

I'm not answering this. Under this rationale we should never sentence anyone to death on the chance that they might be innocent.

*fix'd*

refusing to answer the question puts your "LOT of time" spent considering your stance on the death penalty in a poor light.

Here's why I look at the death penalty the way I do: If someone were to purposefully and willfully murder one of my loved ones (like say one of my kids was kidnapped, raped and then murdered) I would want that person dead.

You've actually got kind of an interesting approach going there, using your own expected moral choices as the bar. So let's ask the next logical question: let's assume you are required to perform the execution yourself, but you know that if you pull the trigger there is a 5% chance that somewhere an innocent man would also die.* Does your action remain the same?

* quick search showed about 3300 people on death row in the US, with 135 or so having been exonerated. We'll very graciously assume that we've found 100% of the wrongly accused.

I'm not answering this. Under this rationale we should never sentence anyone to death on the chance that they might be innocent.

*fix'd*

refusing to answer the question puts your "LOT of time" spent considering your stance on the death penalty in a poor light.

I added to my post_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

I do not want them rehabilitated. I do not want them to have a second chance.

And why exactly?

A person as selfish and self centered as yourself could never begin to understand.

I'll ask, then: And why exactly?

I don't believe that everything is forgivable or deserving of compassion. In my example I feel that anything less than the termination of that person's life would be both. As I see, the murderer chose to forfeit his right to live through his actions._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Say a person is caught in the act and shows no remorse, no potential for rehabilitation, a true misanthrope. I realize that this would only apply to a very, very small percentage of cases but that's as is should be.

So we should be able to kill some innocent people to be able to kill the very, very small percentage of those that are "definitely guilty." That's an interesting argument, and it could be applied to a lot of things. It sounds a lot like the idea of collateral damage in war. But the point of the justice system is that it's NOT the fog of war, that we're only supposed to arrive at conclusions after reasoning and rationally thinking about the case. Despite our best efforts, we have almost certainly executed innocent people with this system, and I think we'll continue to do so for as long as capital punishment is an option. When you think about Blackstone's formulation about it being better to let ten guilty me go free than imprison one innocent man, and then remember that we don't have to let the guilty go free but can imprison them for life, how do you excuse this?

I do not want them rehabilitated. I do not want them to have a second chance.

And why exactly?

A person as selfish and self centered as yourself could never begin to understand.

...the egalitarian joys of state condoned murder to justify your very own oh not so selfish vengeance moral where you are ready to let innocents die? Seriously, I knew you'd be weak, but this..._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Joined: 09 Jul 2006Posts: 9702Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:08 pm Post subject:

Darqcyde wrote:

Here's why I look at the death peSay a person is caught in the act and shows no remorse, no potential for rehabilitation, a true misanthrope. I realize that this would only apply to a very, very small percentage of cases but that's as is should be.

When I think of a situation like this and how it would merit the death penalty, I understand why society would want to apply it to that person. However I see it as a failing of our society in that we do not have the science or other knowledge to help that person become a functioning human being. We don't know how to help those people or even most of the other people society elects to put into prison.

We kill them and imprison them because society doesn't know what else to do.

Of course there is also the emotional appeal of a life for a life and all that but I think the law should be beyond that._________________Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

We routinely utilize death as a means to an end in many cases where alternatives exist. Further, we routinely make decisions that, directly or indirectly, condemn people to death. I say this not to suggest that there aren't cost-benefit justifications for some/most/all of those cases, but to point out that treating death that way is a bizarre position that people take up almost exclusively to discuss the death penalty, largely (I think) because the perceived cost to us is almost nil to keep them alive instead.

it is also largely because of the moral implications of directly and purposefully killing in the punishment category.

a lot changes procedurally and axiomatically when it comes to 'utilizing death as an obligation' versus 'utilizing death via a lack of obligation'